Boyertown proposes 2025-26 budget built on 3% tax increase; board to consider proposed and final votes in April and May

Mrs. Denicola, the district chief financial officer, presented the proposed 2025-26 general fund budget to the Committee of the Whole on April 8. The administration's preview assumes a 3% local real-estate tax increase and total budgeted revenue of $148,750,131 (local, state and federal) and proposed expenditures of $150,604,017.

Denicola summarized revenue drivers and assumptions: the 3% local real-estate tax increase is included in the proposal; the district budget also assumes Governor Shapiro's proposed Ready to Learn increase of about $1.45 million and includes budgeted federal revenue of $867,154. She said federal sources in 2023-24 were higher than budgeted largely because ESSER funds were still available and noted that federal dollars typically pass through to increased expenditures in the same year.

On expenditures, the proposed budget includes 13.5 new full-time equivalent positions described as "student-centered" (examples listed by administration: additional learning support, autistic support, emotional support, counseling positions, a financial literacy position and capacity for two full-day kindergarten positions if the board chooses to pursue that). The proposal also includes a $1-per-hour increase for support staff. Denicola said the 2025-26 proposed expenditures are about $5.79 million higher than the current year and that the tax increase would cover roughly $2.6 million of that, with the remainder expected from state funding increases and planned use of fund balance if required.

The presentation laid out the district's fund balance and constraints: fund balance at 06/30/2024 was reported as $29,150,590 (with $10,908,814 unassigned). Denicola reminded the board that policy limits unassigned fund balance to roughly 8% of budgeted expenditures and that the district would use some assigned/committed balance to support the proposed budget if the state budget differs from current assumptions.

The administration also proposed a district-level property-tax and rent rebate that would mirror state eligibility (household income up to $46,250 and other state criteria). The district proposal would provide a smaller rebate than the state amounts (for example, at the lowest income tier the state rebate maxed historically at $1,000 while the district would propose $250). Denicola estimated issuing about 930 rebates at a projected district cost of $257,750; the board would adopt any rebate by single-year resolution.

Debt and long-term obligations: Denicola and other staff said the district's principal balance on bonds and loans is roughly $81 million and estimated net principal and interest (after state reimbursement) of about $101 million. The district's net pension-related liability (PSERS) remained a major long-term factor.

Next steps: administration recommended the board adopt a proposed general fund budget on April 22 (begin 30-day public inspection) and adopt the final general fund budget on May 27. Denicola said the earlier timeline is intended to give administration time to hire for anticipated positions before the next school year. The board did not vote on the proposed budget at the Committee of the Whole meeting; administration said it will bring motions for the proposed and final budgets and for a one-year resolution on the property-tax and rent rebate at the April 22 legislative meeting.

Why it matters: the proposed budget sets tax and staffing assumptions that will shape personnel decisions and program capacity for the 2025-26 school year and affects taxpayers in the district.